LATEST SUMMARIES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, GOVERNMENT BENEFITS, GOVERNMENT LAW, HEALTH LAW
• County of Los Angeles v. Leavitt

COMMERCIAL LAW, CONSUMER PRODUCTS, CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW, DEBT COLLECTION
• Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, HABEAS CORPUS, IMMIGRATION LAW
• Momeni v. Chertoff

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
• US v. Smith

LATEST SUMMARIES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, GOVERNMENT BENEFITS, GOVERNMENT LAW, HEALTH LAW
County of Los Angeles v. Leavitt, No. 06-55222
In a case involving Medicare reimbursement of indirect medical education expenses (IME) incurred by a public teaching hospital with an approved intern and resident program, a judgment rejecting county's challenge to the calculation of an IME payment is affirmed where: 1) it was not arbitrary and capricious for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to interpret the Medicare statute and regulations providing for IME payment on the basis of "available beds" as presumptively meaning physical beds, when the hospital's fiscal intermediary had previously accepted a calculation based on budgeted beds; and 2) the Secretary's findings in this case were supported by substantial evidence. Read more...

COMMERCIAL LAW, CONSUMER PRODUCTS, CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW, DEBT COLLECTION
Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 06-56370
In an action alleging, inter alia, improper credit reporting, improper investigation, and improper sale of a disputed credit card account by defendant-credit card issuer, summary judgment for defendant on a claim under California's Identity Theft Law is affirmed where the claim failed because defendant was not a "claimant" under California Civil Code sections 1798.92, et seq. Read more...

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, HABEAS CORPUS, IMMIGRATION LAW
Momeni v. Chertoff, No. 07-55018
An alien who comes to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program generally cannot avoid his or her waiver of the right to contest removal, other than on the basis of asylum. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
US v. Smith, No. 05-50375
A conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon is affirmed where: 1) a jury instruction did not relieve the government of its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used a "dangerous weapon," an essential element of the crime; and 2) the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. Read more...